Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4565 ..

MR WHITECROSS: It is a perfectly consistent position. Mr Speaker, it would have been entirely inappropriate for me to have stood in this place, attacked Mr Curnow's words and then to have voted against his statement being incorporated in Hansard. I followed what I believe to be the correct process, and that is to allow the debate on whether it should be incorporated and then, if that decision was made by the majority in this place, to respond.

MR SPEAKER: That makes sense, yes.

MR WHITECROSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Moore: The hypocrisy is that you are standing up to speak in a way that you would not let him do.

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Moore!

Mr Corbell: Are you going to call him to order?

Mr Wood: He will not get a warning.

Mr Corbell: He will not warn Mr Moore. You do not warn Mr Moore, do you?

MR SPEAKER: Be careful.

MR WHITECROSS: Mr Speaker, the citizen's right of reply is an essential part of democracy and I am an avid supporter of it. The right of reply procedures have been in operation in the Legislative Assembly since 1995. Based on the right of reply procedures used in the Senate, it provides citizens with an opportunity to counter statements made by politicians, under privilege, exercising the prerogative of freedom of speech, if citizens feel that they have been aggrieved or unfairly misrepresented in the Assembly. The right of reply was originally implemented in England in the seventeenth century as part of the Bill of Rights and as a fundamental part of the Westminster system.

It is important for elected representatives to be able to represent their constituents without fear of legal action. That is not to say that elected representatives should be able to violate others' privacy or destroy professional or personal credibility. Obviously, that would be contrary to our responsibilities, which is why the right of reply procedure serves as a useful check on parliamentary privileges exercised by elected representatives. However, just as the onus is on elected representatives not to abuse their privileges, it is important for citizens not to abuse or be vexatious in the use of the citizen's right of reply.

Mr Speaker, Mr Curnow is the first person in the ACT to have used the citizen's right of reply. He claims that the statements I made in this place have left him aggrieved and unfairly treated. Without getting into a prolonged debate regarding who is right and who is wrong, I do not believe the procedure used should be abused in the way that I feel it has been, although I accept the decision of the Assembly in relation to this matter.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .